[ietf-dkim] New IANA considerations: standards track or just RFC?

[Paul Hoffman]

Greetings again. One significant change in the new draft is the 
addition in Section 7 of "In all cases, new values are assigned only 
for Standards Track RFCs approved by the IESG." This change came at 
the request of Cullen Jennings, an AD. In that request, he says "Glad 
to talk about pros and cons of this", so I am Cc'ing him on this 
thread.

This change precludes IANA from registering values for IESG-approved 
Experimental RFCs, or IESG-approved independently-submitted 
Informational RFCs. Normally, "standards track only" is used in 
protocols where there is a limited-size namespace, and "RFC only" is 
used in places where namespace size is not a concern but there is a 
desire for a stable, long-lived reference for every entry in the 
namespace.

Maybe we want "RFC only", not "standards track only", particularly so 
that people can create Experimental RFCs and have them be used in an 
interoperable fashion as a way of determining whether they should 
later be elevated to standards track.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Domain Assurance Council